TX-06: Dems in Disarray!

[Matty]

I agree that there is no reason to panic yet, but let us remember that kansas special election in 2017 to replace pompeo.

dems massively overperformed and the chatterati said it meant blue wave.

[junior chįmp]

There are studies indicating that the spouses of politicans who die in office recieve an electoral boost when running for their spouses old seat. I wonder of that helped the Rs in this race



Special Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives: A General Election Barometer?
David R. Smith and Thomas L. Brunell (2010)

[Stuart98]

As usual, Atlas is overreacting. It's one special election with lower turnout so far away from the midterms. This means nothing one way or the other.

This, Special elections tend to be weird anyway. This is definitely not something to be pleased about if you're a Dem but don't panic just yet.

But panicking is my hobby!

find a new hobby.

[Minnesota Mike]

I'm hoping the "Dems in Disarray" is sarcasm.  It was a bad night for Democrats and a good night for Republicans but lets be realistic on what it means to the bigger picture, not much. The district very likely gets more Republican in redistricting since the Republicans hold the trifecta in Texas so at best it would have been an 18 month rental but even if the DCCC jumped in and that would have been a longshot.

[Roll Roons]

I'm hoping the "Dems in Disarray" is sarcasm.  It was a bad night for Democrats and a good night for Republicans but lets be realistic on what it means to the bigger picture, not much. The district very likely gets more Republican in redistricting since the Republicans hold the trifecta in Texas so at best it would have been an 18 month rental but even if the DCCC jumped in and that would have been a longshot.

Mostly, but in this case, there's a kernel of truth to it.

[Joe McCarthy Was Right]

% with Bachelor's or higher:

TX-2: 38%
TX-3: 51%
TX-7: 44%
TX-10: 35%
TX-21: 43%
TX-22: 39%
TX-24: 43%
TX-25: 35%
TX-32: 40%

TX-6: 27%

Others:
GA-6: 56%
GA-7: 38%
MI-8: 37%
MI-11: 44%
PA-17: 41%
CA-45: 50%
NJ-7: 48%
NJ-11: 50%

GOP flips in 2020 after Dem 2018:
CA-39: 39%
CA-48: 42%

This district's Democratic trend is mainly because of changing demographics, not Rs switching sides like the more educated suburbs. Lower propensity voters in these places tend to be Dems, hurting the party in off year elections. CA-25 is a perfect example, 26% with college degree or higher and Dems completely struggled in the special election (lost by 10) but Biden still won by 10 in the fall. Of course Smith was an awful candidate and Dems couldn't win the House seat but it was a coin flip.

My point isn't that Dems will win or lose the House, it's that districts like TX-6 are not as good for them in non-presidential years. For the GOP, I would throw out PA-8 as a good example that is probably better for them in presidential than a midterm. TX-6 is is SIGNIFICANTLY less educated than districts the Dems have recently gained. Just because it is suburban and Sun-Belt doesn't mean it is the same.

some other data about this district;

1. 34.5% of whites in the district have a ba or higher (ranking 212th out of all CD's, slightly below national %)
2. average white income is $80,090, ranking 126th in the nation.
3. Tarrant county's blue suburbs and white precincts also showed far more republican votes in this low turnout special

While doomsday is silly, this is not a good result for democrats, no matter how you try to spin it. this is a district where they should do well, even with a fragile turnout coalition.

I disagree with Devils30's assertion that the recent shifts in the district are primarily due to changing demographics because Joe Barton won in 2016 by a normal Republican margin. It's more likely there are some voters there who typically vote Republican but didn't support Trump. Hence, the margins in this special election were similar to how the district was in 2014. A caveat is that minority voters might be less likely to vote in primaries.

I'm guessing the reason these kinds of districts trended away from the GOP in the Trump years despite not being highly educated is that the non-bachelors degree whites in these districts were already heavily Republican before Trump, to the tune of 85%. Therefore, it was mostly just whites with bachelors degrees who shifted, which hurt the GOP.

[Non Swing Voter]

Panicking over this is ridiculous.

First of all, it was a Republican held seat. 

Second of all, there was clearly more attention on the GOP side as they had a carnival act of candidates.

Third of all, his widow probably got a sympathy vote/boost in turnout. 

But it would be dumb for Democrats to not view this as a wake up call that if they veer too far left they will lose some of the gains they made recently in wealthy suburbs, which would be a mistake.  In a lot of those wealthy suburbs they probably have enough cushion to survive.  But if they lose say 5 points nationally in those kinds of suburbs they probably do lose their majority.  Now maybe they make the calculus that it's worth it to lose the house to ram through their fiscal agenda but I think that would be a mistake because they're also going to lose a lot of their donor base. 

[Devils30]

% with Bachelor's or higher:

TX-2: 38%
TX-3: 51%
TX-7: 44%
TX-10: 35%
TX-21: 43%
TX-22: 39%
TX-24: 43%
TX-25: 35%
TX-32: 40%

TX-6: 27%

Others:
GA-6: 56%
GA-7: 38%
MI-8: 37%
MI-11: 44%
PA-17: 41%
CA-45: 50%
NJ-7: 48%
NJ-11: 50%

GOP flips in 2020 after Dem 2018:
CA-39: 39%
CA-48: 42%

This district's Democratic trend is mainly because of changing demographics, not Rs switching sides like the more educated suburbs. Lower propensity voters in these places tend to be Dems, hurting the party in off year elections. CA-25 is a perfect example, 26% with college degree or higher and Dems completely struggled in the special election (lost by 10) but Biden still won by 10 in the fall. Of course Smith was an awful candidate and Dems couldn't win the House seat but it was a coin flip.

My point isn't that Dems will win or lose the House, it's that districts like TX-6 are not as good for them in non-presidential years. For the GOP, I would throw out PA-8 as a good example that is probably better for them in presidential than a midterm. TX-6 is is SIGNIFICANTLY less educated than districts the Dems have recently gained. Just because it is suburban and Sun-Belt doesn't mean it is the same.

some other data about this district;

1. 34.5% of whites in the district have a ba or higher (ranking 212th out of all CD's, slightly below national %)
2. average white income is $80,090, ranking 126th in the nation.
3. Tarrant county's blue suburbs and white precincts also showed far more republican votes in this low turnout special

While doomsday is silly, this is not a good result for democrats, no matter how you try to spin it. this is a district where they should do well, even with a fragile turnout coalition.

I disagree with Devils30's assertion that the recent shifts in the district are primarily due to changing demographics because Joe Barton won in 2016 by a normal Republican margin. It's more likely there are some voters there who typically vote Republican but didn't support Trump. Hence, the margins in this special election were similar to how the district was in 2014. A caveat is that minority voters might be less likely to vote in primaries.

I'm guessing the reason these kinds of districts trended away from the GOP in the Trump years despite not being highly educated is that the non-bachelors degree whites in these districts were already heavily Republican before Trump, to the tune of 85%. Therefore, it was mostly just whites with bachelors degrees who shifted, which hurt the GOP.

If you consider this Saturday election as a factor you have to also consider the D+15 Wisconsin superintendent election. We have a long way until 2022.

[Joe McCarthy Was Right]

% with Bachelor's or higher:

TX-2: 38%
TX-3: 51%
TX-7: 44%
TX-10: 35%
TX-21: 43%
TX-22: 39%
TX-24: 43%
TX-25: 35%
TX-32: 40%

TX-6: 27%

Others:
GA-6: 56%
GA-7: 38%
MI-8: 37%
MI-11: 44%
PA-17: 41%
CA-45: 50%
NJ-7: 48%
NJ-11: 50%

GOP flips in 2020 after Dem 2018:
CA-39: 39%
CA-48: 42%

This district's Democratic trend is mainly because of changing demographics, not Rs switching sides like the more educated suburbs. Lower propensity voters in these places tend to be Dems, hurting the party in off year elections. CA-25 is a perfect example, 26% with college degree or higher and Dems completely struggled in the special election (lost by 10) but Biden still won by 10 in the fall. Of course Smith was an awful candidate and Dems couldn't win the House seat but it was a coin flip.

My point isn't that Dems will win or lose the House, it's that districts like TX-6 are not as good for them in non-presidential years. For the GOP, I would throw out PA-8 as a good example that is probably better for them in presidential than a midterm. TX-6 is is SIGNIFICANTLY less educated than districts the Dems have recently gained. Just because it is suburban and Sun-Belt doesn't mean it is the same.

some other data about this district;

1. 34.5% of whites in the district have a ba or higher (ranking 212th out of all CD's, slightly below national %)
2. average white income is $80,090, ranking 126th in the nation.
3. Tarrant county's blue suburbs and white precincts also showed far more republican votes in this low turnout special

While doomsday is silly, this is not a good result for democrats, no matter how you try to spin it. this is a district where they should do well, even with a fragile turnout coalition.

I disagree with Devils30's assertion that the recent shifts in the district are primarily due to changing demographics because Joe Barton won in 2016 by a normal Republican margin. It's more likely there are some voters there who typically vote Republican but didn't support Trump. Hence, the margins in this special election were similar to how the district was in 2014. A caveat is that minority voters might be less likely to vote in primaries.

I'm guessing the reason these kinds of districts trended away from the GOP in the Trump years despite not being highly educated is that the non-bachelors degree whites in these districts were already heavily Republican before Trump, to the tune of 85%. Therefore, it was mostly just whites with bachelors degrees who shifted, which hurt the GOP.

If you consider this Saturday election as a factor you have to also consider the D+15 Wisconsin superintendent election. We have a long way until 2022.

I would not discount Democrats doing better in Wisconsin without Trump or Walker on the ballot.

[Devils30]

% with Bachelor's or higher:

TX-2: 38%
TX-3: 51%
TX-7: 44%
TX-10: 35%
TX-21: 43%
TX-22: 39%
TX-24: 43%
TX-25: 35%
TX-32: 40%

TX-6: 27%

Others:
GA-6: 56%
GA-7: 38%
MI-8: 37%
MI-11: 44%
PA-17: 41%
CA-45: 50%
NJ-7: 48%
NJ-11: 50%

GOP flips in 2020 after Dem 2018:
CA-39: 39%
CA-48: 42%

This district's Democratic trend is mainly because of changing demographics, not Rs switching sides like the more educated suburbs. Lower propensity voters in these places tend to be Dems, hurting the party in off year elections. CA-25 is a perfect example, 26% with college degree or higher and Dems completely struggled in the special election (lost by 10) but Biden still won by 10 in the fall. Of course Smith was an awful candidate and Dems couldn't win the House seat but it was a coin flip.

My point isn't that Dems will win or lose the House, it's that districts like TX-6 are not as good for them in non-presidential years. For the GOP, I would throw out PA-8 as a good example that is probably better for them in presidential than a midterm. TX-6 is is SIGNIFICANTLY less educated than districts the Dems have recently gained. Just because it is suburban and Sun-Belt doesn't mean it is the same.

some other data about this district;

1. 34.5% of whites in the district have a ba or higher (ranking 212th out of all CD's, slightly below national %)
2. average white income is $80,090, ranking 126th in the nation.
3. Tarrant county's blue suburbs and white precincts also showed far more republican votes in this low turnout special

While doomsday is silly, this is not a good result for democrats, no matter how you try to spin it. this is a district where they should do well, even with a fragile turnout coalition.

I disagree with Devils30's assertion that the recent shifts in the district are primarily due to changing demographics because Joe Barton won in 2016 by a normal Republican margin. It's more likely there are some voters there who typically vote Republican but didn't support Trump. Hence, the margins in this special election were similar to how the district was in 2014. A caveat is that minority voters might be less likely to vote in primaries.

I'm guessing the reason these kinds of districts trended away from the GOP in the Trump years despite not being highly educated is that the non-bachelors degree whites in these districts were already heavily Republican before Trump, to the tune of 85%. Therefore, it was mostly just whites with bachelors degrees who shifted, which hurt the GOP.

If you consider this Saturday election as a factor you have to also consider the D+15 Wisconsin superintendent election. We have a long way until 2022.

I would not discount Democrats doing better in Wisconsin without Trump or Walker on the ballot.

Neither would I. Wisconsin seems to be a consensus to trend Republican but you can't rule out a further Dem trend in Waukesha, Ozaukee combined with weaker rural GOP turnout.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The reason this race is bad news for the democrats is not cause of the result but rather it shows the idea that democrats have this major advantage with high propensity voters is not true and that was something they needed to be true to have any realistic chance at the house

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The reason this race is bad news for the democrats is not cause of the result but rather it shows the idea that democrats have this major advantage with high propensity voters is not true and that was something they needed to be true to have any realistic chance at the house

Regardless of how much you try to spin out of this election result, it still is over-analysis. Doubly so given all the other factors (sympathy, TX Ds being notoriously bad with turning out in specials, the D base being particularly low-turnout minorities, etc)
This is a particularly bad example to try to justify this kind of argument.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The reason this race is bad news for the democrats is not cause of the result but rather it shows the idea that democrats have this major advantage with high propensity voters is not true and that was something they needed to be true to have any realistic chance at the house

Regardless of how much you try to spin out of this election result, it still is over-analysis. Doubly so given all the other factors (sympathy, TX Ds being notoriously bad with turning out in specials, the D base being particularly low-turnout minorities, etc)
This is a particularly bad example to try to justify this kind of argument.

Not really cause the fact is there is almost no realistic way the democrats were gonna hold the house unless their theory of republicans not turning out in non presidential years due to democrats having this massive advantage with high propensity voters was accurate.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The reason this race is bad news for the democrats is not cause of the result but rather it shows the idea that democrats have this major advantage with high propensity voters is not true and that was something they needed to be true to have any realistic chance at the house

Regardless of how much you try to spin out of this election result, it still is over-analysis. Doubly so given all the other factors (sympathy, TX Ds being notoriously bad with turning out in specials, the D base being particularly low-turnout minorities, etc)
This is a particularly bad example to try to justify this kind of argument.

Not really cause the fact is there is almost no realistic way the democrats were gonna hold the house unless their theory of republicans not turning out in non presidential years due to democrats having this massive advantage with high propensity voters was accurate.

I mean, that might or might not be true, but TX-06 is a very bad test case for that hypothesis, and other factors relevant to the circumstances of the election only make it even more unsuitable.

[MT Treasurer]

It is intellectually disingenuous and grossly misleading to compare a highly partisan federal election like this to a nonpartisan superintendent race (essentially between two Democrats) where no Republican was on the ballot and which had incredibly low voter turnout (for rather obvious reasons).

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I agree that there is no reason to panic yet, but let us remember that kansas special election in 2017 to replace pompeo.

dems massively overperformed and the chatterati said it meant blue wave.

The chatterati were seeing blue waves in everything, including JBE's narrow reelection. Why should esteemed bloggers care what they think?

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

It is intellectually disingenuous and grossly misleading to compare a highly partisan federal election like this to a nonpartisan superintendent race (essentially between two Democrats) where no Republican was on the ballot and which had incredibly low voter turnout (for rather obvious reasons).

Yes, clearly this 23 candidate special election primary with 23 candidates and no one cracking 20% is a much better indicator.

[It’s so Joever]

It is intellectually disingenuous and grossly misleading to compare a highly partisan federal election like this to a nonpartisan superintendent race (essentially between two Democrats) where no Republican was on the ballot and which had incredibly low voter turnout (for rather obvious reasons).

All special elections matter.

[Sir Mohamed]

Come on, anyone trying to predict the midterms based on this is clearly kidding themselves. This is no implications, especially with so low turnout.

Dems need to continue focus in the popular items of Biden's policies, pass them, do a good messaging and field good candidates next year.

[Frenchrepublican]

While some people are really overreacting to these results I think that the liberals / the many pro dem pundits on Twitter who are totally downplaying them are wrong (and they are fooling themselves).

I mean, obviously no serious person should expect a 21 points to the right between the 2020 pres numbers and the next year congressional vote, sure, now once we have said that, if you look at the average of special elections held since January 20th you will see that democratic candidates are running 2 points behind Biden, not horrible but certainly not great either. (Keep in mind that Biden won GA/AZ/WI/PA by less than that - and in the case of NV he won it by a such margin).

Many red avatars on this forum expect next year to be some dem equivalent of the 2002 midterms and in order to back their point they argue that Biden is extremely popular, according to polls, and that two thirds of the electorate are supporting his policies.
If I'm not going to try predicting Biden approval by using special election results, the least we can say is that if the Biden+15 polls were accurate, special election results would be probably very different.

Also some people are arguing that next year midterms will be great for democrats because Trump voters are low turnout voters while Biden voters are all UMC liberals with college degrees who will turn in drove, this point is ridiculous, really ridiculous. Actually the truth is that both parties have some low propensity voters and some higher propensity voters, and there is no reason to expect that democrats will have a turnout advanatage next year, especially considering that Biden gets a higher strong disapproval rate than a strong approval rate.
And once again, if the special elections should not be overhyped, they are usually a good barometer of which party has the most engaged voters and at the moment it's clear that democrats don't have a enthusiasm gap, actually it is the GOP which has probably a slight advantage.

[Greedo punched first]

I made the Wikipedia primary map for the special election.

Susan Wright
Jake Ellzey

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Rs are definitely gonna lose the Senate 51/49 WI, PA, NH is f
Good as D and lose the 278 Gov Map, even if Rs take a Narrow Majority in the H, the cannot win without WI, MI and PA the Prez even with DeSantis whom would lose

The H can be won back in either 2024/2026 the Senate map is awful for Rs thru 2026

That's why Biden or Harris are 2T Prez, so celebrate Rs while you can

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

The reason this race is bad news for the democrats is not cause of the result but rather it shows the idea that democrats have this major advantage with high propensity voters is not true and that was something they needed to be true to have any realistic chance at the house

I understand your point, but there's a difference between "high propensity enough to vote in an election with 40-50% turnout" (i.e. a regular midterm election, like 2022) and "high propensity enough to vote in an election with 15% turnout" (i.e. this special election). Just because Democrats did badly among this 15% group is not really enough to indicate that the Democratic base will still be low-propensity in a regular midterm setting.

[Devils30]

It is intellectually disingenuous and grossly misleading to compare a highly partisan federal election like this to a nonpartisan superintendent race (essentially between two Democrats) where no Republican was on the ballot and which had incredibly low voter turnout (for rather obvious reasons).

Yes, clearly this 23 candidate special election primary with 23 candidates and no one cracking 20% is a much better indicator.

Ossoff in GA-6 2017 attracted fundraising, 23 candidates mean it won't get that at all...and the lead Dem was a retread. Lets see how NM-1 goes along with VA this fall.

[omar04]

There are studies indicating that the spouses of politicans who die in office recieve an electoral boost when running for their spouses old seat. I wonder of that helped the Rs in this race



Special Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives: A General Election Barometer?
David R. Smith and Thomas L. Brunell (2010)

wasn't this election 'nationalized' for the GOP and Democrats? most of the running Republicans had positions in the Trump admin and tried to tie themselves to Trump like Sery Kim. and of course there were some hopes Sanchez could have won the second time around.